BHASKAR UPADHYAYA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, who is a P. C. S. Officer in the service of the Government of U. P., while working as Sub-Divisional Magistrate (herein-after referred to as the SDM Kirtinagar, Tehri-Garhwal, was awarded the following adverse entry dated 6-5-1987 by the Collector, Tehri-Garhwal ;

(2.) AFTER its communication, the petitioner filed a representation before the State Governmeet against it, which has been rejected by the State Government on 24th Decomber, 1988 and commuuicated to the petitioner through the letter dated 23-1-1989. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged aforesaid orders of the State Government and the Collector Tehri Garhwal.

(3.) THE Government has produced the whole record before us and from its perusal it is clear that the Government sent the representation of the petitioner to the then Collector, who had awarded the adverse entry, for his comments. THE Collector sent his comments dated 29-4-1988 to the Government containing reference of various cases and other factual aspects. For example, regarding the working of the petitioner as S. D. M- the Collector has referred to four cases Nos. 64/86, 134/86, 26/86 and 121/86 in support of the adverse entry. After the original record was placed before us, we informed the learned counsel for the petitioners about these four cases and the petitioner has filed a rejoinder affidavit in which the report of the same Collector, who used to counter sign the diary of the daily work of the S. D. M., has been filed as Annexure RA-I. From the perusal of RA-I, it is clear that the Collector has himself made a note in the diary that warrants sent by the S. D. M. are not being executed by the police on account of which notices- have not been served on the accused, resulting in delay. From this report,, it is clear that the petitioner is not responsible for this delay. Regarding other two cases, the petitioner has filed copies of the order sheets to show that the allegation of excessive adjournments of the cases are wrong. THEre are various other allegations made by the Collector in his comments, which are capable of being explained by the petitioner.